[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6458-6463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Hello, America. Do you know what is going to happen in 
just a few days? In 7 legislative days, the United States highway trust 
fund runs out of money--kaput, it is over--a fund established by 
President Eisenhower in the 1950s, out of money.
  What is the House of Representatives doing? What is your 
Representative and your Senator doing? Well, I suspect debating the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership--the TPA--when, in fact, this is the big jobs 
issue.
  The trade negotiations, you can debate it forever; but if you really 
want to create jobs in America, pay attention to this, America. Pay 
attention to the fact that the Federal highway trust fund expires in 7 
legislative days. We have got work to do here; we have got a lot of 
work to do, and it is not happening.
  I am a Californian. I represent the State of California. We have a 
pretty high opinion of ourselves in California, maybe deserved or not; 
but what it means to us when the highway trust fund shuts down, what it 
means is a lot of jobs. 73,572 jobs will be jeopardized at the end of 
this month of May. We are looking at 5,692 active highway and transit 
projects will stop, red light stop, don't go forward.
  For California, in just 7 legislative days, a very, very important 
thing happens--actually, far, far more important than the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership or the trade promotion authority. This is where the big 
jobs are in America. Building the infrastructure of America is how you 
create jobs today and on into the future because you lay the foundation 
for economic growth.
  If you couple those transportation programs with another long, 
longstanding American law, which is Buy America, Make It In America, 
you not only create the foundation, but you also create immediate 
manufacturing jobs of all kinds. From the bulldozers, to the tractors 
and the backhoes, to the steel and the concrete, you buy it in America; 
you build the infrastructure in America, and you create immediate jobs.
  How many? Well, I think we all know Duke University. It is more than 
a basketball school. It also happens to be one of the more thoughtful 
research institutions in the United States. They produced a little book 
that about 535 of the Representatives of the American people ought to 
be reading.
  This ought to be the bedtime reading for the Senators and the Members 
of Congress: ``Infrastructure Investment Creates American Jobs,'' Duke 
University Center on Globalization, Governance, and Competitiveness.
  I am going to read just a few things here just to drive this point 
home.

       Old and broken transportation infrastructure makes the 
     United States less competitive than 15 of our major trading 
     partners and makes manufacturers less efficient in getting 
     goods to market.

  You want to get goods to market, build the infrastructure.

       Underinvestment costs the United States over 900,000 jobs, 
     including more than 97,000 American manufacturing jobs.

  You want to Make It In America, build the infrastructure.

       Maximizing American-made materials when rebuilding 
     infrastructure has the potential to create even more jobs. 
     Relying on American-made inputs can also mitigate safety 
     concerns related to large-scale outsourcing.

  It is our Make It In America policy. It is the agenda that we have 
been driving for the last 5 years here. Build the infrastructure, Buy 
America, Make It In America.
  Competitiveness, a lot of talk, everybody wants to talk about the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPA. You want to be competitive; you 
build the American infrastructure--again, Duke University.

       The United States boasts the world's largest stock of 
     transportation infrastructure as measured by combined 
     bridges, airports, seaports, and miles of road, rail, 
     pipeline, and inland waterways.

  It is a very good start, foundation.

       The United States is not well positioned compared to its 
     major trading partners in terms of quality of transportation 
     infrastructure. Global assessments of transportation 
     infrastructure place the United States in 16th place out of 
     144 nations.

  You want to improve our competitiveness, you want to create jobs, 
build the infrastructure.

                              {time}  2015

  The quality of transportation infrastructure affects the United 
States' competitiveness, point No. 6, and here is what we can do about 
it.
  Instead of the administration's spending all of its energy and all of 
its time talking about how we are going to deal with international 
trade that, in all likelihood, will create fewer jobs in America--so 
much so that they have to put into that Trans-Pacific Partnership a 
provision that would actually pay American workers who have lost their 
jobs--why don't they talk about their own GROW AMERICA Act?
  This is the Department of Transportation. This is the President's 
program, the GROW AMERICA Act. It is, really, a good piece of 
legislation. It is not yet introduced, unfortunately, but it calls for 
$7.6 billion to fix our highway system--this is all annual--$6.8 
billion to improve public transportation, $3.4 billion to strengthen 
our rail systems--Amtrak and other kinds of rail systems--and $1 
billion to accelerate our freight support system. If you really want to 
do international trade, you really have to build the freight management 
system in this Nation. It has got to go out, not just in, and you can't 
do it with the antiquated freight systems that we have in the United 
States. This is $476 billion over a 4-year period of time. It is a good 
project--it is fully paid for--but we are not even talking about it 
here.
  We have got work to do. The purpose of this 1 hour, which will, 
actually, be significantly less than an hour, is to say, ``Hello, 
America. Wake up. Ask your Members of Congress: `What are

[[Page 6459]]

you doing about transportation? What are you doing in 7 legislative 
days to fix the transportation system? Are you paying attention? Are 
you paying attention to your State? to your community that you 
represent? to the jobs that you are going to see and the highway 
projects and the transit projects? Are you paying attention?''' In 7 
legislative days, at the end of this month, the Federal highway trust 
fund terminates along with the projects that are supported by it. It is 
a problem. It is our problem. We need the courage to act, and we need 
to pay attention to what is really important, which happens to be the 
transportation infrastructure of this great Nation. We need to rebuild 
it.
  Joining me this hour is the gentlewoman representing the Capital of 
the United States, Washington, D.C., Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Delegate Norton, thank you for joining us tonight. I am looking 
forward to your presentation.
  Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my good friend from California because it 
is you who have done a great service to the Nation's infrastructure and 
transportation by taking out this hour virtually every week. Sometimes 
it is a lonely hour, but I want you to know that some of us notice.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am not lonely tonight with you. I am glad you have 
joined us.
  Ms. NORTON. I will say that the way in which you have persisted is 
really a model for how Members get things done in this House, so I have 
come down, first, to thank and honor you for what you have done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
  Ms. NORTON. I have to say, in listening to you, I simply can't figure 
it out, as your one-man show alone should have been enough to get this 
bill reauthorized. It is a very unusual way for one Member to take one 
issue and just not let it rest. Our committee and this Congress owe you 
a great debt of thanks particularly when you consider, Mr. Garamendi, 
that you are talking about a bill that has strong bipartisan support in 
a Congress that is not known for bipartisanship. So I thank you from 
the bottom of my heart for what you have done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership on the 
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, because you are carrying the weight 
of this particular piece of legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. And it is weighing us down. I am afraid we are not 
getting anywhere, but if we keep trying and if we keep following your 
leadership and the leadership of Mr. Shuster on that side of the aisle 
and of Mr. DeFazio on this side of the aisle, you couldn't have a 
better partnership in this Congress. I can't believe we won't be able 
to get something done, but May 31, my friend, looms, as you said in 7 
days--or is it 6? The fact is that we are counting down, and there are 
some of us coming on the floor with you each day to count down. I was 
here on a 1-minute earlier today, and I think Members are beginning to 
understand the obligation that they have to take on, the obligation 
that you have taken on as a lonely Member for months now.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It has to be done. We absolutely have to do this with 
your leadership on the subcommittee in trying to find a path to build 
the infrastructure and in looking for ways to pay for it.
  Actually, the administration in the GROW AMERICA Act found a way to 
pay for it--with the earnings of American corporations that are 
overseas. Bring those back; tax them; and we would have enough money, 
together with the existing excise tax, to build our infrastructure over 
the next 4 to 5 years, so we have got to do it.
  Ms. NORTON. And that would give us a long-term bill. The 
administration admits that it, too, is not the answer because, after 
that, we still have to come up with a new way to pay for transportation 
and infrastructure. You, yourself, talked about when this all started, 
which was in the Eisenhower administration. We have gotten so efficient 
now. I drive a hybrid car, which doesn't use much gas. So we have got 
to be prepared to really think through an entirely new way of funding 
transportation and infrastructure.
  You mentioned the GROW AMERICA Act. I will be introducing that act 
soon.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Good.
  Ms. NORTON. The administration does want it introduced. Mr. 
Garamendi, we need it, if for nothing else but as a marker. What are we 
talking about? If nothing has been introduced, I am not sure the 
American people will recognize just how far we have to go.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You have to lay down the marker. You laid down the 
first proposal, and it is really good. I said 4 years. Actually, it is 
a 6-year bill--$478 billion--and it covers all of the elements. All of 
the elements are there. If somebody has got a better idea, we haven't 
heard it.
  I am delighted. When you introduce that bill, count me as one of the 
coauthors of it, and I look forward to working with your leadership to 
push it along.
  Ms. NORTON. Oh, you would be the very first one given what you have 
done on this floor, and I am glad you mentioned some parts of the bill 
and its cost. Yes. Guess what? It costs money; it costs something to do 
transportation and infrastructure; but the administration has had many 
Members' support of bringing back untaxed funds abroad that want to 
come back and of using it for something that everybody is for.
  I understand that our ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, has written Mr. 
Ryan of Ways and Means to ask for a joint hearing of our committee with 
the Ways and Means Committee so that we can work together, and there 
are rumors, because that is all we hear about of this bill these days, 
that there may be one in June. You will notice that that is after May 
31.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a major concern in that it seems as though the 
most common thing that happens here in Congress is a game that we used 
to play as children. It is called ``kick the can.'' You would get an 
old No. 16 can, and you would kick it around the yard. We kick the can 
down the road here so often instead of really gripping the issue and 
saying, ``Okay. Let us do something that lays out a long-term, 6-year 
plan where the States and the counties and the cities can actually 
project projects and know that the funding is going to be there so they 
can be efficient and effective and prioritize.'' Instead of doing that, 
we just kind of kick the can down the road.
  They are talking about a 6-month, until the end of September, with 
the same level of funding. We are going to lose a lot of jobs, and the 
opportunity to build the systems that we absolutely have to have in 
order to grow our economy is not going to happen. I just go, ``Why 
would we do that? We have a good model.''
  I am looking forward to the introduction of the GROW AMERICA Act that 
you are going to introduce. Tell us what is wrong with this. Tell us 
where it doesn't meet the needs.
  My Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues, what is missing? 
What improvements should there be? Tell us what it is. We will deal 
with it.
  The funding source, as you said, makes sense. American corporations--
Apple and others--have billions of dollars--almost $1 trillion--of 
profits overseas that are not taxed. Bring it home. Use that to invest 
in America. Bring the capital home so that you can put labor and 
capital together, starting with infrastructure, and build this Nation. 
Mr. Delaney, our colleague from Maryland, has a good proposal, a 
bipartisan proposal, that does that.
  Run with it, Congress. Run with it, Senate. Let's do something.
  Ms. NORTON. Oh, you have made such an important point because you 
say, if not this, what?
  The Democrats--we on this side of the aisle--are willing to sit down 
with you to come up with whatever bill we can compromise on. We just 
have to be shown a bill. The reason I am going to introduce the GROW 
AMERICA Act is so that we can begin there. Maybe they don't want that. 
Okay. Let's bargain

[[Page 6460]]

down from there, but we can't do nothing. We can't go home and say, 
``Well, we did nothing,'' and we certainly can't simply wait for our 
friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Now, I want my friend from California to know that representatives of 
the states were in the House today and I went to say a few words to 
them. They were in one of our committee rooms--a group that calls 
itself the ``Big Seven.'' They were the leaders in the States. They 
were the Governors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors. They 
were begging for this bill, so they had their own meeting here.
  I think that it behooves us to ramp up the pressure, we who are on 
the inside. When you see that those who represent the infrastructure we 
are talking about are on the Hill, pleading, without an answer from 
either side, well, our side is trying to answer; and because there is 
so much bipartisanship, there is just no reason that we shouldn't be 
sitting down and trying to figure this out.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We really must do that.
  Yesterday, I was in the Central Valley--Modesto, California--for a 
meeting, and I had to drive to San Francisco for a speech over 
Interstate 580, the Altamont Pass, and it is so broken up. There is the 
fast lane on the Altamont Pass, as you go up over the mountain, that 
actually has about a 6-inch crack in the fast lane. As you drive down, 
you are driving down on one side of the crack. You have one wheel on 
one side and the other wheel on the other side of this crack, and you 
say, ``Whoa, I hope I can make it through here.'' That is a major 
transportation route with tens of thousands of cars traveling on it 
every day. So the state of good repair? Not in California.
  What does it mean? If we were to take the GROW AMERICA Act that you 
are going to introduce, it would mean that, compared to this year, 
2015, we would have $7.6 billion more across the Nation to repair the 
highways in our Nation. The Altamont Pass, it is downright dangerous--I 
was shocked--but they don't have any money to fix it. There would be 
$7.6 billion for all of this Nation to do it.
  Then the buses, the transit agency in San Francisco. I was parked in 
San Francisco, waiting for a stoplight. A bus pulls up, and it had to 
be a 1950 bus. It was rusted out, and I am sure the seats were torn 
apart. All good credit to San Francisco for trying, but across the 
Nation, it is the same way--here in Washington, D.C., with the transit 
agencies, Amtrak.
  By the way, Amtrak came to Congress. They wanted money--this is some 
good news--and we actually passed an Amtrak bill out of the House of 
Representatives a couple of months ago. Yet do you know what they 
wanted to do? They wanted to get a waiver on the Buy America 
provisions. They have to build, I think, 28 locomotives and train 
sets--high-speed--and they didn't want to buy it in America. I am 
going, no, no way. If we are going to spend American taxpayer money, 
spend it on American-made equipment, on American jobs. Make It In 
America. No way are you going to get out of that.

                              {time}  2030

  I also want to talk about this, but you have got a bridge behind you.
  Ms. NORTON. I do. You talked about the project in your district, and 
that project with the crack in the road is emblematic of what is 
happening in the United States.
  Mr. Garamendi, they can't even start on that repair because that is a 
major project. So another patch, as we call it, or short-term funding, 
means that the backlog of major projects remains. You can't start what 
America needs, which are major projects. If we could put them all here 
in this Chamber, they would pile up to the ceiling. They simply have to 
sit there with 6-month patches or even a 1-year patch. Yours is a major 
Federal highway, and California can't do anything about it.
  I went to such a highway in my own city, and that is why I brought 
this poster. The Washington Post picked it up and says, ``Norton Uses 
Bridge to Make a Point.'' It is interesting. Although this bridge also 
has real defects, I was using it to make another point, that every form 
of transportation depends upon this bridge in the Nation's Capital: the 
intercity buses; the intracity buses; the street car, if you are going 
to a major highway; the Metro--all of it comes to a head there.
  A point that you touched upon, which is seldom made here, is a point 
I tried to make when I went to the H Street--or Hopscotch--Bridge, and 
that is that the failure to rebuild that bridge is keeping a complete 
overhaul of Union Station from occurring, not to mention a whole new 
community that would be built over it, because they can't move on those 
major economic development projects until the bridge is done, and it 
will take 5 years to rebuild that bridge.
  So you see, Mr. Garamendi, we are not just holding up obvious 
infrastructure projects; we are holding up major economic development 
projects that simply can't get started until the roads and bridges are 
fixed.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, you couldn't be more accurate, and you certainly 
did make the point. I was looking at the picture there. You have got 
the Northeast corridor, the entire Amtrak system underneath that bridge 
into Union Station, which I think is probably just to what I would say 
stage left, and the rail system goes through there, and then the 
highway system. I didn't realize that this is holding up the 
reconstruction of Union Station.
  Ms. NORTON. So that we can get high-speed rail. So you can't get 
high-speed rail unless you dig down. You can't do that unless people 
can get over this bridge. You talked about billions of dollars of 
highway bridge and transit that is being held up. I don't even want to 
begin to try to calculate how much economic development that depends 
upon our fixing those major road projects is not getting done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, also, the lives of our citizens. I don't have 
the placards with me, but in previous presentations I have shown 
pictures of the Interstate 5 bridge that collapsed in Washington State 
near the Canadian border. It shut down commerce going north. You were 
not going north on that bridge because it collapsed. And then there was 
the bridge over the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities, in 
Minneapolis. That bridge collapsed. I think five people lost their 
lives there. This is an ongoing issue, one that we need to deal with.
  The solution is at hand. The solution is at hand. Every community in 
this Nation has a transportation issue of one sort. It might be a 
transit, a bus, a train, or a bridge, or a highway, but we all have it.
  I am going to make one more point, and this will be my last, and then 
I will let you wrap it up. I am going to go back to what is the 
discussion of the day here in Washington, the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
and the TPA, the authorization of the fast track legislation. Ninety-
nine percent of our trade goes through the ports, and this is part of 
the GROW AMERICA Act. It is part of the freight system. I don't think 
this trade bill should pass, but should it become law, you have to have 
the infrastructure that goes with it, and you cannot have a robust 
trade program unless you have a well-built port system.
  By the way, one of the things that is going to happen is, because of 
our energy boom, the United States is creating an enormous amount of 
natural gas. That natural gas is in the process of being transported, 
shipped overseas in what is known as liquefied natural gas. You 
supercool, you supercompress the natural gas; you put it into a tanker, 
a big ship, and you transport it.
  A new facility will go online in Louisiana, and it is called the 
Cheniere facility at Sabine Pass. It will take 100 tankers, ships, to 
handle the volume of that one export facility, and there are five 
others that are in the permitting process. I am saying, Wait a minute, 
that is a strategic national asset; that is part of our infrastructure. 
Why don't we ship that strategic asset on American-built ships with 
American sailors? If we passed a simple law here, which

[[Page 6461]]

actually replicates the North Slope oil law back in the 1960s, we could 
replicate that and simply say: If we are going to export liquefied 
natural gas, do it on American-built ships with American sailors. We 
would build over the next two decades more than a hundred ships in 
American shipyards with American-built equipment and Americans doing 
the welding and building those ships, probably well over 100,000 jobs; 
and the seamen, the merchant marine, they would be American.
  It all fits together. It is part of our transportation 
infrastructure. It is using our great national assets, improving them, 
the transportation system, and then using those assets to create 
American jobs. Buy America, make it in America, transport that natural 
gas on American-built ships with American mariners, and take what will 
be your legislation, the GROW AMERICA Act, and build the 
infrastructure.
  I am looking forward to the introduction of your legislation. I am 
looking forward to your leadership in making this happen. We have got 
to talk about this every single day until we wake up, until America 
wakes up, and says: Wait a minute, guys, do something for our Nation; 
build the foundation of economic growth.
  Thank you so very much for joining us, Delegate. I will let you 
close.
  Ms. NORTON. Well, again, Mr. Garamendi, you have my thanks, and you 
should have the thanks of this entire House. I am glad you closed with 
the program you did--you talked about the ports--because in the GROW 
AMERICA Act is a multimodal freight program. This is the first time it 
has ever been in the transportation bill.
  Now, you gave an example: multimodal, because we are trying to make 
sure that rail and highway and port projects are coordinated together. 
That is the efficient use of all modes of transportation together. Here 
on the East Coast, The Panama Canal is coming and now you have every 
single port trying to get that business, and you have the private 
sector investing like mad in railroads because they want that business, 
and the buses want that business.
  The private sector, Mr. Garamendi, is doing its job, but you can't, 
in fact, in the States do the ports and the freight all by yourself or 
with the private sector alone. And so this bill, the GROW AMERICA Act, 
brings it all together, gives us for the first time something that we 
have had in ground transportation, multimodal, but we have not had it 
in freight transportation so that those ports you are focusing on would 
grow, and we grow them here, just as you said, buying American.
  I thank you once again for all you have done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you so very much. I thank you for your 
leadership. I am looking forward to the introduction of the bill and to 
push that through. Whether we can do it in 7 days or not--we could. It 
is possible. All the language is written. You will introduce it. The 
way of paying for it is known. We have just got work to do.
  I am just thinking about the greatness of this Nation and the 
enormous potential that we have, and how we just let that slip away, 
for lack of solid programs that really build this Nation. I think about 
Eisenhower and what he did with the great highway system that we have, 
the Interstate Highway System. There is much to be done. I look forward 
to your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I notice that our Republican colleagues have been 
listening to our debate and have decided to come and take the next hour 
and carry forth to Make It in America, build the infrastructure and the 
foundation for economic growth. I look forward to hearing the 
gentlemen.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Russell). The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Do you have more you wish to say?
  Ms. NORTON. Yes, I certainly do.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought we had completed, but I guess I am not 
yielding back quite yet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Ms. NORTON. Again, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has 
taken on not only this bill but on infrastructure in our country. I did 
want to say a few more words because in these last 6 days we can't 
leave words unsaid.
  I want to say that what my chief frustration is--there is really no 
serious thinking going on in this House about ways to replace the 
highway trust fund except what is in the GROW AMERICA Act, and that, of 
course, would be for one 6-year period. The reason I bring this up is 
because I want the American people to help us think about what has 
happened to the highway trust fund. We have got to bring it together 
this time and grow America with repatriated taxes that would otherwise 
not be there.
  But let's think of why we have to do that. The efficiency that we now 
have and we ought to be proud of that, but it means that that 1950s 
approach, which worked so magically, is now entirely out of date, and 
there have got to be other ways to fund transportation and 
infrastructure. I was very frustrated that in the last bill, we call it 
MAP-21, there were not even pilots to guide us, like the so-called VMT 
miles driven that all of us, even those of us who are in hybrid cars, 
those who therefore don't contribute as much on the present highway 
fund, would play our part.
  We need to sit around a table right here in the House and figure out 
what to do in the long run because we didn't do that last July when 
this bill was extended. There are even some people talking about, well, 
it can go to July because it runs out in July. Yeah, it runs out in 
July, and then look what happens. Treasury funds will have to be 
transferred just to make sure that we keep level funding going, and 
that level funding, meaning just base funding, will mean that no new 
major projects will be started in the States because of what has come 
to be called lack of certainty. I know of no major project that can be 
finished in 6 months. If it takes you 2 or 3 years, leave alone the 5 
years like my H St Bridge project I spoke about, then you don't start 
it at all. So the money just lies fallow. It goes to no good major 
need.
  So who is to blame? They are going to look to us and say, What are 
you doing? That is why we are coming on this floor. They are going to 
look to us to stop doing the same thing over and over again and think 
of something that we didn't do the last time. These short term patches 
are what we did the last time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we have done it over and over again, and the 
general talk around this building is that we are going to kick the can 
down the road yet again, probably for another 6 months, just like we 
extended the last one for 9 months. It is not the way to do it, and the 
result is bad public policy and an inability to really build the 
foundation for our economic future.
  You mentioned the funding, the notion of a joint committee hearing 
between the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
Committee on Ways and Means to discuss the funding options that you 
just described, and so we should talk about what the options are, and 
then select the one that makes the most sense for this Nation's well-
being.

                              {time}  2045

  We can do that. That is what we were hired to do and what the voters 
put us here for.
  Ms. NORTON. Meanwhile, as you indicated, GROW AMERICA would be a way 
to do it for at least 6 years.
  I went to speak with the various organizations representing the 
States that were here today. I had my staff look at what the States are 
doing. Frankly, I found the States in a desperate position. There are 
States that have already done gas tax increases or reforms of their 
own. You have got to be pretty desperate to raise your own tax and 
leave ours where it was 20 years ago.
  Iowa, Wyoming, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, the District of Columbia,

[[Page 6462]]

South Dakota, these State have nothing in common, except that they 
couldn't continue to go on without funding.
  Six States are making progress on trying to raise their own gas tax 
in the absence of our doing something. Those States, in the same way, 
don't have anything in common. When I say ``making progress,'' it 
generally means one House has at least done it, and they are trying to 
get the other House to raise the gas tax. They are Georgia, Michigan, 
North Carolina, Utah, and Washington State.
  Then there are another seven States which are considering changes 
because they just can't wait any longer to get long-term projects 
going: Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, 
and Vermont.
  When I came into the meeting today, there was someone from the South 
Dakota Department of Transportation speaking, and it was interesting 
because they raised the gas tax in South Dakota, a very red State, and 
it included an amendment also to raise the speed limit by 5 miles an 
hour. I think that would make it something like 80 miles an hour out 
there.
  He said--and he just laughed at this--that, although they had raised 
the gas tax on the residents in the legislature, nobody talked about 
anything except the increase the speed limit. That is how little the 
notion that you shouldn't raise your gas tax had become in a State like 
South Dakota.
  The States are way ahead of us and looking to us for leadership. 
These 6-month increments are the exact opposite of leadership--
delaying, as I indicated before, Mr. Garamendi, billions of dollars of 
other infrastructure that the Federal Government wouldn't have to pay 
for often, that can't get done, like a road or a bridge. That is why I 
went to such an example in my own district.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a list 
of the top five critical infrastructure projects in my own district, 
the Nation's Capital. The National Capital Region Transportation 
Planning Board has also written to this region's bipartisan delegation, 
and I would like to have its resolution also included in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.

 Top Five Critical Infrastructure Projects in the District of Columbia 
       Stalled Until There Is a Long-Term Surface Transportation 
                            Reauthorization

       1. Rehab of 14th St. NW, Thomas Circle to FL Ave.
       2. Safety & Geometric Improvements to
     I-295/DC295
       3. 11th St. SE Bridge (various components)
       4. Improved Signal System and Communication Network
       5. Intersection of PA Ave. and Potomac Ave. SE

                                          National Capital Region,


                                Transportation Planning Board,

                                                   April 27, 2015.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Washington DC.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Washington DC.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington DC.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairmen Inhofe and Shuster, and Ranking Members Boxer 
     and DeFazio: On behalf of the National Capital Region 
     Transportation Planning Board (TPB) at the Metropolitan 
     Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), I transmit the 
     attached board resolution and policy principles for the 
     reauthorization of the federal transportation programs.
       Our policy principles represent a common-sense approach to 
     reauthorization. We urge Congress to enact legislation that 
     will fund priority needs and promote effective planning and 
     project development.
       As we face the expiration of MAP-21, this moment offers an 
     opportunity to demonstrate that our nation is still capable 
     of taking care of its most basic needs as we plan for future 
     generations. We urge Congress to act decisively and 
     comprehensively.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Phil Mendelson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



            National Capital Region Congressional Delegation

       The Honorable Ben Cardin, United States Senate, Maryland.
       The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, United States Senate, 
     Maryland.
       The Honorable Don Beyer, United States House of 
     Representatives, 8th District, Virginia.
       The Honorable Barbara Comstock, United States House of 
     Representatives, 10th District, Virginia.
       The Honorable Gerald Connolly, United States House of 
     Representatives, 11th District, Virginia.
       The Honorable Robert Wittman, United States House of 
     Representatives, 1st District, Virginia.
       The Honorable Tim Kaine, United States Senate, Virginia.
       The Honorable Mark Warner, United States Senate, Virginia.
       The Honorable John Delaney, United States House of 
     Representatives, 6th District, Maryland.
       The Honorable Donna Edwards, United States House of 
     Representatives, 4th District, Maryland.
       The Honorable Steny Hoyer, United States House of 
     Representatives, 5th District, Maryland.
       The Honorable Christopher Van Hollen, United States House 
     of Representatives, 8th District, Maryland.
       The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, United States House of 
     Representatives, District of Columbia.
                                          National Capital Region,


                                Transportation Planning Board,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 2015.

Resolution To Approve Policy Principles for the 2015 Reauthorization of 
                Federal Surface Transportation Programs

       Whereas, the National Capital Region Transportation 
     Planning Board (TPB), which is the metropolitan planning 
     organization (MPO) for the Washington Region, has the 
     responsibility under provisions of the Moving Ahead for 
     Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) for developing and 
     carrying out a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive 
     transportation planning process for the Metropolitan Area; 
     and
       Whereas, since 2000 the TPB has been calling attention to 
     the region's long-term transportation funding shortfall, and 
     has documented its unmet preservation, rehabilitation and 
     capacity expansion needs for the region's highway and transit 
     systems; and
       Whereas, federal funding for transportation infrastructure 
     plays a significant role in the National Capital Region; 
     projects such as the interstate system and the Metro system 
     could never have been built without the leadership, long-
     standing commitment, and financial support of the federal 
     government; and
       Whereas, the Washington region continues to face the 
     challenges of accommodating growth in people and employment, 
     more pervasive congestion on highways and transit systems, 
     and delays in completing critical rehabilitation needs and 
     key expansion projects; and
       Whereas, MAP-21 was enacted on July 6, 2012 as a two-year 
     bill, and was extended on August 8, 2014 through May 31, 
     2015, which was the ninth time in the last decade that 
     Congress has enacted a short-term extension of the federal 
     highway and transit programs.
       Whereas, it is anticipated that Congress will likely again 
     enact a short-term extension prior to the May 31st expiration 
     of MAP-21, but the need for sustained and long-term federal 
     funding could remain unaddressed; and
       Whereas, the lack of predictability in federal funding 
     programs has undermined the ability of state and local 
     implementing agencies to effectively plan and build 
     transportation facilities that are vital to meet the 
     challenges of the future; and
       Whereas, the lack of sustained and adequate federal funding 
     for transportation undermines economic growth in our region 
     and across the nation and hinders our global competitiveness; 
     and
       Whereas, both Maryland and Virginia took historic steps in 
     2013 to address their transportation funding shortfalls by 
     raising new revenues, and the District of Columbia took 
     similar steps five years ago, but nonetheless, the inadequacy 
     of sustainable federal funding remains a critical concern; 
     and
       Whereas, the TPB has regularly communicated its positions 
     regarding federal transportation legislation to Congress, 
     including policy principles in 2002 and 2008, and a letter on 
     May 21, 2014 calling upon Congress to protect the Highway 
     Trust Fund from insolvency; and
       Whereas, at the November 19, 2014 meeting, the TPB directed 
     staff to develop a set of policy principles for the 
     reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program 
     that the Board might communicate to the U.S. Congress; and
       Whereas, on April 3, 2015, the TPB Technical Committee 
     received a briefing and commented on draft proposed policy 
     principles: Now, therefore, be it

[[Page 6463]]

       Resolved that the National Capital Region Transportation 
     Planning Board approves the attached 2015 Policy Principles 
     for the Reauthorization of Federal Surface Transportation 
     Programs'' and further, be it
       Resolved that the National Capital Region Transportation 
     Planning Board calls on the United States Congress to 
     reauthorize an enhanced federal surface transportation 
     program for a full six-year period, consistent with the 
     attached Policy Principles.
                                  ____

                                           National Capital Region


                                Transportation Planning Board,

                                                   April 15, 2015.

   2015 Policy Principles for the Reauthorization of Federal Surface 
                        Transportation Programs

       The federal government has an historic interest in 
     transportation. The benefits of federal investment in a 
     balanced, multimodal transportation system have long been 
     recognized as critical to our national interest, promoting 
     economic growth and providing access to opportunities for all 
     individuals. In addition, the federal government has a unique 
     obligation to support interstate commerce and to meet 
     critical emergency and security requirements, and thus should 
     provide an equitable contribution towards the cost of 
     maintaining, operating and building our transportation 
     infrastructure.
       The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 
     supports the following policy principles as a common-sense 
     approach for reauthorization of the federal surface 
     transportation programs.
       1. Increase Federal Transportation Funding
       A substantial increase in federal surface transportation 
     funding levels is needed to address the current under-
     investment in the maintenance, operations and expansion of 
     the nation's transportation system.
       All reasonable and predictable strategies for sustained 
     long-term funding should be pursued, including:
       Increases in federal fuel taxes or other user-based taxes 
     and fees;
       Indexing fuel taxes and user fees to inflation so as to 
     maintain the buying power of transportation funds;
       Implementing pricing strategies enabled by emerging 
     technology for all modes of travel, including rates that vary 
     by time of day, type of vehicle, level of emissions, and 
     specific infrastructure segments used;
       Incentivizing federal support and coordination of 
     innovative financing techniques, including public/private 
     partnerships;
       Utilizing savings from tax reform legislation; and
       Creation of national infrastructure banks or bonding 
     programs.
       2. Fund Priority Needs
       An explicit program focus, with enhanced funding, is needed 
     to put and keep the nation's transportation infrastructure in 
     a state of good repair.
       Federal transportation policy should provide for increased 
     federal funding focused on metropolitan congestion and other 
     metropolitan transportation challenges, with stronger 
     partnerships between federal, state, regional and local 
     transportation officials.
       The federal commitment to balanced multi-modal 
     transportation systems must be reaffirmed including by 
     restoring parity between the transit commuter benefit and the 
     parking commuter benefit. As communities seek to reduce 
     dependency on driving and serve non-drivers, alternatives 
     must be developed and supported. In particular, federal 
     funding for public transit and safe pedestrian and bicycle 
     infrastructure should be enhanced.
       3. Promote Effective Planning and Project Development
       More timely, detailed, and flexible requirements to comply 
     with MAP-21's mandate for performance based planning and 
     programming should be promulgated. Adequate and timely 
     federal support, including funding, should be provided to the 
     states and metropolitan areas to adopt and implement the 
     program requirements.
       The current set of performance measures outlined in MAP-21 
     should be allowed time to take effect and be evaluated before 
     enhancements are considered.
       Streamlining federal planning and environmental review 
     processes, outlined in MAP-21, that are aimed at ensuring 
     timely delivery of transportation projects, should be 
     supported.
       Given the critical role of goods movement in our economy 
     and the demands of freight on our infrastructure, a national 
     freight program should be a key component of a long-term 
     reauthorization act.

  Ms. NORTON. I want to emphasize, as we approach the end, how little 
of a partisan problem we are talking about this evening. Republican 
Governors have signed the laws that I have referred to.
  The committee--Mr. Garamendi will remember this--had Republican 
Governors, State department of transportation executives, cities, 
counties, regional councils, and the rest before us, and the notion of 
devolution came up.
  This hearing was interesting because when devolution has come up, and 
devolution simply means that if States are raising their gas tax. Well, 
let's stop doing a Federal highway or surface transportation bill.
  These States are raising their gas tax, and they are waiting for us 
to raise ours so that the partnership that is represented by State gas 
taxes and Federal gas taxes will remain whole until we find some other 
way to do this.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________